DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s response sections A, B and C:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The alleged deficiencies (lack of automation) of Schwartz (US 2011/0023226) were taught through teaching references as Schwartz was not cited as anticipating all aspects of the claim language.
Dunckhorst (US 4,345,621) was relied upon as a teaching that it is known to control flow of water through bathroom fixtures, including overhead shower arms, through the use of timers and was not cited as anticipating all aspects of the claim language.
Scott (US 2005/0251906) was relied upon as evidence that closing a drain of a bathtub as part of the process of filling the bathtub is, in addition to being obvious to the general public, well known to those of ordinary skill in the art of bathroom fixtures.
Regarding Applicant’s response section E:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the base reference of Schwartz teaches a method of filling a bathtub with water supplied from an overhead shower arm which would require a user to monitor and manually stop the flow of water after a desired filling time has elapsed while Dunckhorst teaches a method for starting a flow of water from an overhead shower arm and automatically having the flow of water end after a set time without requiring additional actions being taken by the user. The benefit of automating part or all of a process would be obvious to the ordinary artisan and the rationale was provided in the Office Action which detailed the known/obvious benefits of such an automation of shutting off the water flow:
so as to facilitate an automatic shutoff of water flowing through the water supply conduit/control device for greater user convenience and efficiency as the user doesn’t have to directly monitor water use/time or interact with the system to stop the flow.
These rationale/benefits establish that by ensuring the water shuts off at a predetermined time (using a timer instead of relying on a user which could be distracted or otherwise not react immediately) the system becomes more efficient and a user is provided greater convenience and efficiency. Automatically shutting off a flow of water inherently means it will stop flowing at the set time and as such water will not be wasted due to user error/lack of attention (efficiency in terms of water use – lack of wasted water without direct monitoring). Furthermore, automating part of a process frees a user to take other actions or otherwise not be required to constantly monitor the process/apparatus performing the process (Convenience and efficiency – a user is no longer required to be present and manually engaging with the system to directly monitor and shut off the flow of water as detailed in the reasoning/motivation of the original Office Action). As such the rationale/benefit of facilitating a user performing other tasks or engaging in other processes due to the automation of part of the process was established and communicated.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant’s response section E:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Dunckhorst was relied upon as a teaching for installing a mechanical timer controlled water control device on an overhead shower arm including the process of removing an existing showerhead and coupling the control device to the overhead shower arm and was not cited as anticipating all aspects of the claim language.
Claim Interpretation
The preamble of Claim 18 states that the claimed invention is “A method to autonomously fill to a desired fill level a bathtub”. However the claim, at the very least, requires a user to establish or determine a desired fill level, to pre-determine a time duration to flow water to reach this desired fill level and to enter the time into a timer. Furthermore, dependent claim 19 requires a step/process of removing an existing showerhead and installing a water control device on a shower arm which is not an automated step. As such prior art methods and/or method steps which are not fully autonomous and instead require a user input/action will still be considered to satisfy the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0023226 (Schwartz) in view of US 4,345,621 (Dunckhorst) as evidenced by US 2005/0251906 (Scott).
Regarding claims 18-20, Schwartz teaches a method to autonomously fill to a desired fill level a bathtub comprising:
providing a bathtub (110/112) having an associated drain (130/150) and an associated water supply conduit disposed above the bathtub, the conduit configured to supply water to, and removably mount at least one of a plurality of showerheads (128/228) for showering in the bathtub (Annotated figure below; also the showerhead is mounted above the bathtub and requires a conduit to supply water to it);
PNG
media_image1.png
292
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
providing a user control configured for initiating a flow of water from the water supply conduit and for terminating a supply of water from the water supply conduit (faucet assembly 226 is used to start or stop a supply of water and has controls as depicted unlabeled in Fig. 7, also a bathtub/shower combination would have some form of control for starting and stopping a flow of water from the showerhead in order to properly function);
wherein the method further comprises:
closing the associated drain of the bathtub before filling so that water will not exit out of the bathtub (The bathtub assembly has an associated drain 130/150 as previously established. Paras. 0038, 0069 and Claim 7 detail filling the bathtub which would require the drain to be closed so the basin of the bathtub can retain water);
initiating a flow of water through the associated water supply conduit disposed above the bathtub (Paras. 0038, 0069 and Claim 7 detail filling a basin with a flow of water which would require starting the flow of water); and
filling the bathtub to a desired fill level (Para. 0003 – establishes that users would have a desired fill level deemed safe and not a waste of water. Para. 0038 – establishes filling a bathtub with water from a showerhead of a conventional bathtub. Para. 0069 – Explicitly states filling bathtub to a desired level with a fixture supplied with water from the associated conduit and indicates this is an alternative to a bathtub faucet or showerhead establishing use of the showerhead to fill bathtub. Claim 7 establishes a method of filling a bathtub with a showerhead of a conventional bathtub).
Schwartz discloses a method of filling a bathtub to a desired fill level with water from a showerhead supply conduit which therefore is a method of flowing a predetermined amount of water into the bathtub through the supply conduit (the volume of water required to fill the specific bathtub to the chosen level). Schwartz, however, does not disclose use of a water control device configured to receive a user input to set a fixed time for flowing water from the showerhead before automatically shutting off.
Dunckhorst teaches a water control device (10) coupled to a water outlet of a water supply conduit (32) configured to supply water to a showerhead (34). The water control device comprises a mechanical timer which accepts a user input (16 – control knob) of a time duration and being configured to shut off a flow of water outputted from the water control device upon the user inputted time duration being elapsed (C2 L18-26, C3 L16-38). Dunckhorst further teaches that the water control device can be installed onto an existing shower assembly by removing an existing showerhead from the water supply conduit, and then coupling the water control device to the water supply conduit (C2 L38-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install a water control device comprising a mechanical timer which controls a flow of water therethrough on an existing water supply conduit of a shower head, as taught by Dunckhorst, so as to facilitate an automatic shutoff of water flowing through the water supply conduit/control device for greater user convenience and efficiency as the user doesn’t have to directly monitor water use/time or interact with the system to stop the flow.
For the purpose of compact prosecution Scott is being cited as evidenced that certain steps of the claimed method such as determining a time required to dispense a certain quantity/volume of water and closing a drain prior to filling a bathtub are old and well known process steps in filling a bathtub.
Scott establishes that it is old and well known to close the drain of a bathtub in order to fill it with water for bathing (Para. 0002).
Scott also establishes that in order for a user to set a run time for a flow of water to fill a vessel (bathtub) to a desired level a user would first have to have determined how long the specific system needs to operate to fill a specific bathtub to a specific level such as by previously timing a filling cycle of the bathtub (Para. 0019).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A ROS whose telephone number is (571)270-3577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS A ROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754